SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert “Bip” Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Jeff Jonas, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kent Nelson, Laurie Noda. Andrea Barrows was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, and Planners Melissa Anderson, Greg Mikolash, and Doug Dansie.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, June 6, 2002
Arla Funk stated that she was present at the last meeting but was not named in the list of Commissioners who were present although her name does appear everywhere else in the minutes.
Jeff Jonas referred to page 11, first paragraph, third line, and noted that R-1-500 should be corrected to read R-1-5000. He referred to page 12, last line of the first paragraph, and requested that the words chain retail be changed to read retail chain. In the second paragraph on that page, he noted that the word longrange should be two words, to read long range.
Motion
Arla Funk moved to approve the minutes of June 6, 2002, as corrected. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Jonas and Mr. Nelson abstained from the portion of the meeting they did not attend. Ms. Barrows was not present. Chairman Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-08 and 400-01-32, requested by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to continue the public hearing to provide for the following: 1) Zoning map amendments and changes to the Sugar House Master Plan and future land use map to designate areas for townhomes and live-work units, mixed uses and low density residential land uses for the area between 900 East to McClelland Street and 2100 South to Sugarmont Avenue; 2) a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to the CSHBD zone to eliminate the residential density limit in the Sugar House business district; and provide a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to the CSHBD zone to require townhouses or live-work units as a part of any new development in a portion of the area generally bound by 2100 South and Sugarmont Drive, and between 1000 East and McClelland streets.
Planner Melissa Anderson reported that the Staff presented their report and recommendations two weeks ago, and a public hearing was held. She added a clarification in Sub-Area 4 that the Staff recommends that the ordinance specify either medium density residential or residential mixed use for the land use. The Staff prefers to see town houses or live-work units, in any new development. General description of those land uses would be adequate to allow creativity in the design of any new development
Chair Daniels reopened the public hearing.
Judi Short commented that Shopko is a good example of what she could see happening to the housing in this area. The street where Shopko now stands had 22 houses on it, and someone bought the houses one at a time, speculating that it would eventually be retail space, and they held onto it. For a long period of time it fell apart and looked ugly. Ms. Short believed the recommendations in the staff report would be a good solution, because it is important to protect the historic home. It is appropriate for use as an office, and the buildings are an asset because of how they look. She believed the plan for light rail in Sugar House was good, but she did not think it would come immediately, and there could be quite a few years of nice housing in this area before having to convert it to commercial or RMF-35. She believed it would be a long time before all the housing potential is used up and the small houses are taken away. She urged the Planning Commission to consider leaving the houses and stated that she supports the R-1-5000.
Kent Nelson expressed concern that, if there are deteriorating spots in those homes in the future, people move out, and the area is strictly zoned for single-family housing with no other use, they would not be able to stop the deterioration in the neighborhood. That may not occur in the short term, but in the long term if could happen. Ms. Short agreed but felt it was a nice area, and if it is chopped up into duplexes and people are encouraged to assemble three or four properties for fourplexes, it would be an abomination. Mr. Nelson stated that he was thinking more of an RB zone, which would provide an exit strategy in the event the area goes bad. Ms. Short did not think the RB zone was a good solution because the residential use is always lost.
Susan Petheram, a trustee for the Community Council, stated that the neighborhood meeting regarding this rezone showed the commitment the people have for their houses. The Community Council strongly supported the recommendations in the staff report and believed it was moving in the direction of the master plan and what the community wants to see in the Sugar House Business District. One of the things they want to see is containing commercial and small businesses in a central area in the Business District and not letting them creep out further. She believed the Staff’s recommendation was important for the health of the business district in consolidating all the uses in the center and for the health of the neighborhood by protecting these homes, unlike other homes that disappeared due to commercial spreading along 2100 South. Ms. Petheram remarked that this neighborhood, instead of deteriorating, has the potential to become a key primary living district. As the area develops, the neighborhood will be enhanced and the property values will rise. She believed the rezone would give an incentive to current property owners to make more investment in their property because they will have security that their houses will not be torn down for multi-family housing. Multi-family housing is needed, but there are plenty of underutilized spaces in the Sugar House Business District where multi-family housing would be appropriate.
Soren Simonsen, a Highland Park resident and architect and a member of the Landmarks Commission, stated that his opinions are his own and do not reflect those of his employer or the Landmarks Commission. He spoke in favor of this proposal and outlined some reasons why he hoped the Planning Commission would consider approving it. He understood the discussion regarding deterioration of neighborhoods, but his observations, having worked throughout the region and looked at research throughout the country, were that generally neighborhoods do not deteriorate because of a few homes but because of low density, industrial, and commercial encroachment into established residential areas. He believed that had happened over many years in the Sugar House area. Neighborhoods like the ones identified in this proposal are vital to a diversity of housing and maintaining a residential core within the Sugar House area. Increasing and eliminating the diversity of housing would be a poor move on the part of this community. He stated that there is no area to develop single family residential within the City limits, and in established urban areas, single-family residences are vital to the vitality of neighborhoods. To eliminate these residences would be detrimental. Mr. Simonsen believed there were ways to introduce new housing into existing neighborhoods. Diversifying housing in Sugar House is important, but the City should not look at policies that eliminate single family residences and should instead look at ways to introduce housing in a mixed-use development in areas where there is low density commercial development. He commented that leaving the current zoning would tend to increase property values for residents who have been there a long time and rely on keeping property taxes at a reasonable level. The proposal is important in maintaining the existing populations in those areas and insuring that new people can move in once the homes are vacated. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the Staff’s recommendation to modify the zoning to help preserve the existing single-family residential neighborhoods. He also asked that, as they look at changes in this area, they pay attention to opportunities to increase housing in predominantly commercial areas and introduce a more mixed-use development pattern that will help maintain the livelihood and diversity of this neighborhood for many years to come.
Christie Johnson, a resident on Lincoln Street, stated that she spoke at the last meeting and was struck by two comments she heard. First was a comment by Mr. Muir who said that on one hand they had adopted a policy of embracing change and growth. His next comment was that the current zoning had protected the neighborhood for 70 years. Ms. Johnson found that statement to be disconcerting, because if the City is going to embrace and adopt growth, the current zoning is suspect at the very least. She remarked that Staff’s recommendation would allow those who own homes to keep their homes with a degree of certainty that they will be safe in years to come and also allow for development of new housing. She believed they would get the best of both worlds with the Staff’s recommendation. She strongly encouraged the Planning Commission to adopt the Staff’s recommendation. She stated that she was also distressed at the last meeting by a comment from a gentlemen who owns property but does not live there who referred to the neighborhood as trashy. As she listened to his concerns, she realized that the things he was concerned about are allowable under the current zoning. His property is behind Smith’s where it is very dark and a lot of drug deals are carried out. That does not happen on her street where the neighbors are watching and the lighting is better. The gentleman was concerned about the eight-plex and the duplex beside it, and Ms. Johnson noted that those are not single-family residences. The commercial development this gentleman was interested in is the kind of development that promotes the problems he is concerned about. Ms. Johnson stated that there are ways to adopt growth and ways to change neighborhoods that protect existing housing and produce new opportunities. She believed the Staff’s recommendation would do that.
Lavana Smith, a resident on Lincoln Street, asked where the parking for Trax would be located. She noted that someone asked that question at the last meeting and it was not answered. Ms. Funk replied that the location has not yet been determined. It will be somewhere between 1100 and 1300 East and will be determined when they get closer to Trax coming into Sugar House, which will not be for a number of years. At that time a study will be conducted to determine where it should be.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition 400-02-08 and 400-01-32
Arla Funk moved to approve Petitions 400-08-32 and 400-02-08 based on the findings of fact from the staff report presented at the last meeting and the current staff report and to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt these petitions with the four recommendations outlined on page 2 of the staff report. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion.
Mr. Jonas noted that the Planning Commission brought this back for continued discussion, and he asked why they were willing to vote on a motion without the benefit of that discussion. He recalled a lengthy discussion that got them to the zoning proposal in front of them, and it came down to several issues. He believed there was general consensus on changing CB to CN. There seemed to be issues as to whether an R-1-5000 zone was appropriate south of Elm with the possibility that a Trax line will someday be there and the impact of that type of zone next to a Trax line. The idea was raised that this area might be appropriate for an RB zone. There was also concern about the area north of Elm and whether the RB zone was appropriate for extending the Sugar House rezone to the entire study area north of Elm or changing the entire area to RB with the exception of the CN zone. Mr. Jonas stated that he had particular concern with the area north of Elm, especially the block east of 1000 East, and with dividing Zones by existing land uses vs. trying to create a single zoning area there. He did not favor the Sugar House Area 5 zone but was more comfortable with that than carving out small sections. In order to have good development, they should zone by areas rather than zoning by uses.
Ms. McDonough commented on the idea of turning more of that area into RB than what is proposed. It was her opinion that it had been demonstrated that the RB zone usually builds commercial and erodes housing. She suggested minimizing where they view the RB zone, and she believed where it stands in the proposal was probably all right. She did not want it in Sugar House Business District 3 because that is commercial, and they would erode the neighborhood even more by doing that. Ms. McDonough felt that Sugar House Business District 5, described as encouraging live-work units, would be a better balance since both living and working is likely to happen as opposed to one or the other. She felt that extending the District 5 zone to more of the blocks next to it would be worth discussing. She believed live-work units across from Granite Furniture would make sense as an edge for a transitional zone. She was unsure if it made sense to bring it into the middle of the residential zone, and that was why she was comfortable with R-1-5000 in that area.
Mr. Muir stated that he did not understand the lack of Staff’s reaction to their comments and concerns at the last meeting. He recalled that the Commission had directed Staff to look at what may be the appropriate long-term zone and plan for the future. The current zone is probably not appropriate, but he did not see any response to the Commission’s directive. Mr. Goldsmith explained that the Staff held a lengthy discussion after the last meeting, and the issue a citizen brought up about having it both ways drove what appeared to be the Staff’s lack of response. This is a transition time in Sugar House, and they do not want to undermine the stability of those neighborhoods with speculation. It is unknown when Trax might come, and they run a great risk of undermining the stability and investment of the neighbors if they speculate too quickly. This proposal is a way to begin encouraging those changes, particularly along McClelland, while making sure they are promoting stability.
Mr. Jonas stated that he was frustrated with the process in Sugar House as the Commissioners continually have discussions during their meetings with no response from Staff. Receiving a memo saying the proposal was the same as at the last meeting with no additional feedback was frustrating to him. Mr. Goldsmith asked how Mr. Jonas believed the Staff should have responded. Mr. Jonas suggested that they could discuss why the Staff did not agree with the issues raised at the last meeting. He believed it was incumbent upon Staff to address the issues brought up rather than ignoring them.
Mr. Muir asked if Area 2 was appropriate for a performance zone overlay. For example, this area could return to a single-family residence zone provided there is an overlay performance incentive package to encourage developers to do what the City wants as supported by the market. This could leap frog from where they are today to where they want to be 20 years from now without incremental density happening haphazardly. Mr. Goldsmith asked the Planning Commission to help address the stability issue. Mr. Jonas stated that he could see both sides of that argument and could be easily swayed. He has some reservations about the area being zoned R-1-5000, because a number of properties would be non-conforming. He was more concerned with the area north of Elm which becomes a transition zone, and he did not understand Area 5 for the Sugar House 5 Zoning District and the modifications included in the staff report. He suggested expanding the Sugar House 5 District to the entire area north of Elm that is sited for rezone, but not without knowing more about it. He believed things should happen in better increments that allow for meaningful development in the future.
Ms. Anderson addressed some of the concerns that were not articulated to the Planning Commission. The Sugar House Business District zone does not have demolition criteria and, as a consequence, the potential landmark site would have no protection. The City is not requiring the property owner to register it, but demolition criteria are very helpful in preserving this unique and valuable historic resource. That was acknowledged in Staff review and in letters from the State Historic Preservation Office and the Utah Heritage Foundation. The RB zone, when looking at the larger area and those houses that are still in a house-type structure, is the most consistent and provides a transition with the neighboring residential homes that are proposed for the R-1-5000 zone. The Staff is recognizing the value of the existing homes and the stability of the community. That is also balanced with the fact that there are more than 40 acres of the business district to redevelop. Good planning practice is to direct redevelopment in areas that are appropriate as opposed to the existing community areas. If the Granite furniture block, the area with the live-work units, the area south of Granite, and the Shopko block were to redevelop, the road infrastructure could not handle that potential development. She questioned why they would look at redeveloping an existing stable neighborhood when they will not be able to build out the business district to the extent they would like. A traffic impact analysis and business district plan for the area are being conducted to balance how much density can be managed and accommodated with the existing road infrastructure and transit. The density that has been envisioned in the past (eg.-10 stories)cannot be built out, because the transportation infrastructure will limit that development. She asked why the Planning Commission is looking at an existing neighborhood that is solid and can support the future community. She explained that the Staff’s recommendation is based on that information. Ms. Anderson stated that the SHBD5, residential or residential mixed use, preferably townhouses or live-work units, is specifically recommended because the scale and land use would offer an appropriate transition to the existing homes. The Staff did not favor rezoning all the homes to RB because RB does not encourage residential use. The RB Zone requires structures to maintain a residential appearance, but there is no incentive to keep the residential use. When there is 40 acres of redevelopment area and potentially a million square feet of commercial as well as office space, there is no need to accommodate more commercial use in that area. She did not understand why the Planning Commission would want to look at this area for redevelopment. Based on all the information, the Staff did not find that to be a wise decision or a good planning decision as it does not recognize the value of the existing communities. She believed the region could approach and embrace density if it is guided in appropriate redevelopment areas.
Mr. Goldsmith apologized for not submitting in writing the reasons for the Staff recommendation that Ms. Anderson articulated.
Mr. Jonas stated that he did not disagree with Ms. Anderson’s comments, but he asked why the redevelopment of Shopko appeared to be imminent. That redevelopment would be a long time in the future, and adding that parcel to the current figures would be misleading.
Mr. Muir stated that he appreciated Ms. Anderson’s logic and the Staff’s knowledge. He felt that the Planning Commission was struggling with the issues, and their comments and thought processes helped provide guidance. He understood the logic of rezoning a node and building it out on the periphery, but he did not understand why they leap frogged over to grab Smith’s and convert that zone. He believed with that move that the die would be cast for the surrounding neighborhood. He felt the Staff had a different logic for commercial than for residential. Ms. Anderson stated that it would be incorrect to say there is a presumption of higher density around that 30-foot-high, mixed-use Sugar House Business District Zone.
Mr. Muir and Ms. Anderson discussed density and walkable communities. Ms. Anderson stated that walkable is not equivalent to density. Mr. Jonas stated that he did not understand how they could not have density with a walkable community, because walkable communities assume a mix of commercial/retail with residential. If there is not density to support it, it is not deemed walkable. Mr. Goldsmith explained that it depends on the edges. He referred to the Federal Heights area to demonstrate how there could be large residences on large lots and still create a walkable neighborhood because of the mobility pattern. Mr. Diamond felt the difference was that they would create more edges within this edge and commented that the scale is what is so great about Sugar House. He asked if the Staff recommendation would create another edge that would create another boundary to allow folks to get into the neighborhood rather than being enclosed.
Ms. Funk referred to an earlier comment by Ms. Anderson about future density being too much for the infrastructure. She asked why they are recommending a plan that is too much and why more of it is not lower density. Ms. Anderson replied that she will evaluate that when she does the Sugar House Business District small area plan. A transportation consulting firm has been contracted to evaluate densities, and if the Staff comes before the Planning Commission to lower the height limits, they will be based on quantitative transportation impact numbers and skilled evaluation in terms of design and scale for the community. Ms. Funk asked if the areas had been studied enough and suggested possibly protecting Area 2 with the recommended down zoning and leaving the rest until they can answer more of the questions that keep coming up this evening. She wanted to protect the single-family homes, but she was concerned about changing the zoning now when a year later it could change again.
Mr. Nelson stated that he had observed the Rose Park area, which is similar in terms of small homes on small lots. Some of the pockets maintain their value, and there is pride in home ownership, but other areas start to deteriorate. Soon another pocket deteriorates and people start to move out. He asked how these 33 parcels would avoid that kind of scenario when neighborhood profiles change over a period of time. Ms Anderson replied that the intent of the recommendation to rezone to R-1-5000, which is consistent with the existing land uses, is to provide more stability so it will not unduly deteriorate. It is anticipated that, over time, as the business district redevelops into a mixed-use area, those housing choices, variety of types, and location will be valuable and hold their value over time. Mr. Nelson commented that it is only an assumption that the homes will hold their value and not deteriorate. Mr. Diamond believed Rose Park was different from Sugar House because of the different fabric that surrounds it.
Mr. Muir clarified that he did not oppose stabilizing this neighborhood, but he was concerned with the schizophrenic way they are going about it. It is all right to destabilize the commercial sector but not all right to destabilize the residential, and until there is a more holistic approach, he had a problem with that concept.
Mr. Goldsmith asked what kind of urban design and zoning changes the Planning Commission would like to see so they can move forward with this smaller area.
Mr. Muir commented that, since the perimeter was moved out by grabbing Smith’s and then creating an island with an exception within that perimeter, the only thing that would satisfy him would be a vehicle to get from stable, single-family residence to the next step. After further discussion about the perimeter and the peninsula referred to. Ms. Anderson stated that good planning principles support and guide growth and development in an appropriate manner. Otherwise the market will bleed out into the residential areas. Many people do not want to live downtown, but they do want to live in a smaller community where they can raise their families and feel comfortable. She clarified that the term “bleed out” means that the market would go out to areas where there is cheaper land rather than being directed toward more appropriate areas. 40 acres of redevelopment area that the City would like to see redeveloped with residential and mixed use is a healthy amount of land area to work with.
Mr. Goldsmith noted that, for the first time, they are addressing wholesale infill strategies, and so far, urban infill strategies have been mostly parcel by parcel. Peninsulas will occur depending on the condition and form of the existing neighborhood. Carving out pieces of prime land becomes a preservation strategy as it changes the densification or walkability of the neighborhood. The Staff relies heavily on the eyes and ears of neighbors to help carve out these pieces so they do not extract more than they need to. Mr. Muir stated that he did not understand why they wanted to destabilize Smith’s. Without that element, he would have no problem with the proposal. Ms. Anderson replied that the SHBD zone is very much about site design, and Smith’s could do exactly what they are doing now. She did not think this proposal would destabilize them. Mr. Muir stated that they would be destabilized because they cannot effectively respond to the auto-oriented marketplace. Ms. Anderson felt that went hand in hand with the walkable communities ordinance which affects the CB zone which is, the current zoning on the Smith’s lot. She reiterated her earlier comment that there is a misconception that walkable is not equal to density. The 1500 East/1500 South node is a beautiful walkable neighborhood with small businesses and comparatively low density. Mr. Jonas commented that everyone who lives in that area complains every time a new lease comes in. He commented on a Board of Adjustment meeting he attended where people turned out in numbers to state their opposition. Ms. Anderson agreed that there have been tensions in the neighborhood that the City is working to address the issues.
Mr. Jonas noted that they are creating a new zone with the CSHBD-5 without any conversation, and he was troubled by that zone. The concept of live-work is not defined or explained, and he was unsure if it was a viable concept. He agreed with transition and understood that concept coming off of McClelland, but he felt they should be discussing issues related to this new zone. He was troubled by the fact that any building in any of the Sugar House zones with a first floor area of 20,000 square feet or less would be a permitted use, and he did not believe the height issue was clear. Ms. Anderson noted that the language recommended by Staff for CSHBD-5, ordinance was, “The maximum building height in CSHBD-5 shall not exceed 30 feet for residential or live-work uses. Non-residential uses in a live-work building are limited to the first floor and a maximum of 50% of the total floor area of any unit.” Mr. Jonas asked for clarification of a live-work unit. Ms. Anderson explained that a live-work unit typically uses the first floor as a work area, and one would live behind or above it. That would provide the stability of someone living there as opposed to a retail only, non-residential use. Mr. Goldsmith explained that a live-work unit requires a residential component, whereas mixed use can have residences, offices, and retail, but unless it is specifically requires residential, a mixed-use building could have only retail and office uses. Mr. Jonas recalled a conversation at the last meeting about adding an opt-out provision, and he did not see that in the current staff report. Ms. Anderson replied that it was only a suggestion, but it could be considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilde had mentioned it at the last meeting as a way to work with developers so that, if there was an intrinsic problem or creative development options, the conditional use method would be an option for re-evaluating the requirements. Mr. Wilde stated that, as written, they still need to build an escape method if the Planning Commission does not want to enforce residential into the mix. Mr. Goldsmith stated that the goal of the Planning Staff was to enforce a residential component. Mr. Jonas agreed and felt they could enforce it through a conditional use. He stated that he was uncomfortable about creating a zone and was concerned about how the language was written. The terminology “residential mixed use” was more comfortable to him than residential or live-work uses. Mr. Wilde stated that, if the Planning Commission prefers an opt out where there can be a commercial use without a residential component, the best way to structure it would be to require a conditional use approval for a new principal building that does not have a residential component.
Mr. Nelson asked if there had been discussion of transferability of density. Mr. Goldsmith replied that transfer of development rights has not been considered. Mr. Nelson felt that it would encourage more housing and provide easier developability. Mr. Goldsmith commented that transfer of development rights is another issue that would have to be addressed across the board throughout the community.
Mr. Chambless recalled discussion at the last meeting regarding light rail through Sugar House. Ms. Anderson explained the process and commented on the amount of study involved and the number of years before light rail will occur. Mr. Chambless commented that people moving to Sugar House will create greater density. What they are molding is a residential business edge city within Salt Lake City. Ms. Anderson stated that Sugar House has typically been referred to as a city within a city.
Mr. Jonas felt the RB zone was more constraining in terms of future development. In terms of a transition buffer, he preferred to see the junky area around the historic building zoned Sugar House 5 and Sugar House 3 to allow more development flexibility. Mr. Wilde stated that the intent of RB is to provide land use flexibility. Offices and retail are allowed, but the intent is to preserve the buildings. With a conditional use, the buildings can be replaced, but a replacement structure must take on a residential character. Mr. Jonas felt there was a strong recommendation to preserve the R-1-5000 zone south of Elm Street. He suggested keeping the zoning south of Elm Street as proposed by Staff, change CB to CN along 900 East, change all the other areas to R-1-5000, and create the new Sugar House 5 zone along McClelland Street south of Elm. He suggested that everything north of Elm, except the historic home, be zoned Sugar House 5. The historic home should remain RB. Mr. Goldsmith commented on earlier references to the edge of McClelland Street on the east side and suggested that the Planning Staff initiate a review of urban design elements to be incorporated into the master plan along the McClelland edge. Mr. Jonas suggested that the Sugar House 5 zone include an opt out and that the language be changed to residential mixed use instead of live-work. He also suggested reducing maximum building size to less than 10,000 square feet for conditional uses.
Ms. Arnold asked if Mr. Jonas’s comments would go back to Staff for refinement and come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Jonas felt that, if the Commissioners were comfortable with these conditions, he would add them to the motion for action this evening.
Ms. Funk withdrew her motion to allow Mr. Jonas to form his comments and suggestions into a new motion. Ms. McDonough agreed and withdrew her second to the original motion.
Mr. Wilde asked if the opt-out provision Mr. Jonas referred to was the conditional use escape they had discussed. Mr. Jonas replied that it was.
Mr. Diamond asked if the edge referred to is both sides of McClelland. It was confirmed that it would be both sides.
Motion for Petition #400-01-32
In the matter of Petition #400-01-32, text and map amendments related to the Sugar House Business District Zone, based upon the findings of fact, Jeff Jonas moved that Title 21A.26.060, the first enabling language, be divided into 5 sub-areas instead of four; that F be revised to 10,000 square feet as a conditional use in Area 5; and that G(5) be modified to read, “The maximum building height in CSHBD-5 shall not exceed 30 feet for residential or residential mixed uses. Non-residential uses in a residential mixed-use building are limited to the first floor and a maximum of 50% of the total floor area for any building. Any building over 10,000 square feet on the first floor shall be a conditional use, with opt-out language for a conditional use for non-residential uses.” With respect to the map, Mr. Jonas moved that the zoning map for the Sugar House Business District in this area be modified to change the CB zoning along 900 East south of Elm and north of Sugarmont Drive to CN; that the residential area south of Elm between Elm and Sugarmont Drive be rezoned to R-1-5000 with the exception of the strip on the west side of McClelland Street which will be rezoned to a CSHBD-5 zone; that north of Elm Street all the area west of McClelland to Lincoln Street that is not currently proposed to be zoned CSHBD-3 be rezoned to CSHBD-5 with the exception of the historic building which will be rezoned to RB. Mr. Jonas moved to forward this recommendation to the City Council with a recommendation to direct the Staff to study the east side of McClelland street in terms of proposed urban design element changes to the master plan. Mr. Jonas also requested that Staff bring the draft ordinance back for Planning Commission review before it is forwarded to the City Council. Kent Nelson seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold and Mr. Muir voted “Nay.” Ms. Barrows was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Motion for Petition #400-02-08
In the matter of Petition #400-02-08, the Sugar House zoning and master plan future land use map amendment, based upon the findings of fact contained in the Staff report, Jeff Jonas moved to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the zoning and future land use map amendments for the areas illustrated in Exhibit 3 as modified to reflect the prior changes made to the zoning map as outlined in the motion for Petition 400-01-32. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion. Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Ms. Arnold and Mr. Muir voted “Nay.” Ms. Barrows was not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact
1. The proposed rezone and future land use map amendment is consistent with the Sugar House Master Plan, Sugar House Master Plan (2001), SLC Housing Plan (2000), Futures Commission Final Report (1998), and the SLC Strategic Plan (1993). Amending the zoning and future land use map will ensure the policies relating to neighborhood stability, encouraging creative development, and preserving historic resources found in the cited master plans are implemented.
2. The study area is not located within any of the overlay districts.
3. The proposed amendments are to implement policies of the Sugar House Master Plan and are not project related. The affected areas are located where existing public utilities and services exist. Future development projects may be required to include upgrading of utilities and facilities to ensure adequate levels are provided.
Area I
1. The proposed rezone from CB to CN will ensure that new development will continue to support small businesses that are at a scale compatible with the neighboring residential uses. The proposed land use for these parcels is consistent with the proposed zone.
Area II
1. The proposed zoning and land use is consistent with the existing single-family and will preserve the stability of the neighborhood. Retaining the residential density of the area will not adversely affect the objectives of the business district to be a transit-oriented town center.
Area III
1. The proposed RB zone for Area III is consistent with the existing land uses and will not affect adjacent properties negatively. The residential land uses to the south and east will benefit from the lower intensity land uses, demolition criteria and new construction design criteria that are associated with the RB zone. The RB zoning district also allows property owners the potential for non-residential land use options on their property.
Area IV
1. The proposed land use change from mixed use to townhouses or live-work units is consistent with the urban character of the business district town center. Townhouses or residential mixed-uses in Area IV will also provide a better transition between the core of the business district and the residential uses found in Area II.
Master Plan Amendment
1. The mandated notification procedures, as outlined in the State Code for amending a master plan, have been followed.
Prescott Muir left the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition #410-600 by Watson Laboratories, requesting a conditional use approval for additional building height for the proposed expansion of Watson Pharmaceutical Laboratory, located at 575 South Chipeta Way in the “RP” zoning district at the University of Utah Research Park.
Planner Greg Mikolash reviewed the conditional use request for excessive height in the RP zone as presented in the staff report. He noted that such requests typically go to the Board of Adjustment under a special exception, but this is a special zone that allows height in excess of 45 feet but no higher than 75 feet. The purpose of the expansion is to relocate and prepare for planned growth in the Watson Pharmaceutical facility. At the highest point above existing grade, total height, including a mechanical penthouse, will be 69'8". There will be 435 parking stalls on site, and the requirement is 397 stalls. Parking was calculated with the Development Review Team and Building Services Department. The architect has provided an outline of how the parking was calculated, and Building Services is comfortable with that calculation. Mr. Mikolash noted that the view corridors on the lower south or west side looking at the foothills is the main concern and the reason this is before the Planning Commission as a conditional use. He reported that he received a letter from Charles Evans with the Research Park Architectural Committee. Mr. Evans stated that he had reviewed the structure, and the building materials and height are fine. He also received a letter from Paul Williams at This is the Place State Monument who indicated that he was comfortable with the conditional use as presented. Mr. Mikolash understood that the architect had received a letter from the Governor’s Memorial Park committee who indicated that they did not oppose this request. The Staff favors this conditional use request. Three other conditional use requests have been submitted in the Research Park area for additional height, the last one being the Myriad, which is less than two blocks from the Watson Building. The Myriad also constructed underground parking. The other two were within the past seven years and received no opposition. The Staff requested that the Planning Commission grant this special exception for increased height.
Mr. Chambless commented on the amount of parking proposed and felt that this was a great deal of pavement next to a State Park where there has never been pavement before. He believed 397 parking spaces was more than what was needed. Mr. Mikolash replied that 397 is a lenient calculation that excluded exhaust tunnels, corridors, mechanical rooms, and elevators. Some of the parking stalls will not be used, but if the use were to expand to a different use, they could be needed. He preferred to steer the discussion away from parking because it is not part of the conditional use. He was unsure if the Planning Commission had the ability to change parking density numbers within the ordinance. Mr. Chambless asked why they could not use the same solution as the Myriad and create underground parking. Mr. Mikolash replied that underground parking is possible but is not required. He assumed the biggest concern would be the cost of underground parking.
Ralph Stanislaw, the architect representing the petitioner, was available to answer questions. He noted that they put together a parking analysis to comply with the requirements of the ordinance. The analysis proposed 435 spaces. There are 368 employees working in the facility. Ms. Funk asked how many visitors Watson receives in a day. It was noted that approximately 10 to 15 people come and go during the day. Mr. Nelson asked if they operate one or two shifts. Doug Call, representing Watson Laboratories, replied that currently they have only one shift, but the expansion is based on future growth with the possibility of overlapping shifts.
Ms. Funk asked how many employees drive their own cars and whether Watson provides an incentive for using the UTA bus system. Mr. Call replied that they do not have a bus incentive program, but many of the employees ride bikes. Ms. Funk shared Mr. Chambless’s concerns about the large amount of asphalt. She asked Mr. Wilde if there was a way to reduce the parking. Mr. Wilde replied that there is a method for doing that. Ms. Funk felt the issue was how to accommodate the needs of the petitioner without having so much asphalt. She asked if there is adequate public transportation to the building. It was noted that there is a bus stop in front. Mr. Call stated that parking is based on the assumption that everyone drives their own car. Ms. Funk commented that the Planning Commission worked with the University a number of years ago to help them recognize that there are other ways for people to get to work. She wanted to initiate that same conversation with Watson to see if there was a method for reducing the asphalted area.
The Planning Commission and the petitioner discussed the parking issue. Mr. Wilde noted that a provision in the City ordinance under alternative parking requirements allows for unique non-residential use if, by the nature of the use, the applicant can demonstrate they need less parking than what is required by the ordinance. That is a Board of Adjustment function which allows an adjustment to the number of parking stalls if the employer provides van pools or an employer-sponsored public transportation program. If the Planning Commission wanted to move in that direction, it could probably be justified by the increased height. The Planning Commission can direct the applicant, to the extent that they can build a case through that process, to accomplish a more realistic parking requirement. Chair Daniels asked if the adjustment would be in place forever in the event the property is used by someone else for a different use. Mr. Wilde replied that alternative parking requirements do not run with the land and are limited to the conditions under which the approval is granted.
Mr. Call stated that he understood the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the height issue. Mr. Jonas replied that the parking issue troubles the Planning Commission more than the height. He asked if the applicant would be in favor of a mechanism that would reduce the parking. Mr. Call stated that they would be interested, but if they cannot find the mechanism, he wanted to know if the application could still move forward. Ms. Funk stated that the parking mechanism may be a condition of the approval for granting additional height.
Mr. Wilde commented that, since the additional height is a conditional use, and the conditional use will intensify the site and require additional parking, he believed the Planning Commission could make the nexus between the required parking and the height. Mr. Diamond noted that the height is driven by the mechanical equipment, not by people who drive cars. Mr. Wheelwright stated that, if the applicant cannot get the additional height, they would have to sacrifice floor space to contain the mechanical equipment.
Mr. Diamond asked for a walk through of the materials and elevations that face the park areas. Mr. Stanislaw stated that the intent is to match the character of the existing facility to match the two colors of brick. He reviewed the elevation drawings, identifying the materials and buildings. To address the parking issue, he commented on a product available in which grass can be planted but it is still possible to drive and park on it. He suggested that might be a way to meet the current zoning ordinance while meeting the Planning Commission’s desire to minimize the black top area. Mr. Nelson proposed that, if they limit parking, shade trees could be planted in the additional space to avoid the heat.
Ms. McDonough asked the petitioner if it would be possible to designate the area considered for a parking reduction as a separate part of bidding this project without delaying their plans. The petitioner replied that the building process is of less concern that the permitting process through the City. Ms. McDonough asked if the parking situation would hold up the permit. Mr. Wilde replied that, if the Planning Commission agrees to authorize a permit subject to the alternative parking program, it would not be held up. A recommendation could be made that the petitioner pursue that process but, if they are not successful, they would be subject to meeting the City ordinance.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Ms. Arnold asked why they would make the applicant go through the Board of Adjustment if there is the alternative of concrete grass. She suggested giving the applicant this alternative from the outset. Ms. Funk agreed that the concrete grass would be a good idea if it looks good. She wanted to see it in use, because it is difficult to drive on a surface on which plants live. Ms. McDonough stated that she had seen the product and was not convinced that it would provide an extension of the landscape. Mr. Wilde noted that the ordinance requires hard surfacing, and he was not sure this material would satisfy parking requirements in order to obtain a building permit. He offered to pursue it if the Planning Commission included it as part of the motion.
Ms. Funk suggested reducing parking to the 399 stalls required and that the applicant poll their employees to see how many drive, how many take the bus, how many car pool, and how many ride bikes. She also suggested that the employer offer bus passes free of charge to their employees and encourage car pooling. She stated that she would be willing to grant this conditional use request with the requirement that the applicant go through the alternative parking procedure.
Mr. Diamond asked if they could initially reduce parking since the building is not fully occupied and phase parking as the business expands. Mr. Wilde explained that parking requirements usually come with the initial construction. If some of the parking requirement is based on employees and they can show a lower employee count, the applicants can provide a lower number initially, but they would have to be prepared to add parking as the employee count increases.
Mr. Nelson stated that he would prefer to reduce the number of parking stalls to 300. Mr. Mikolash felt that would be a problem, especially if a change in use occurs that would require more parking. The Building Service Department becomes very concerned when uses are changed without looking at the parking count. Mr. Wilde clarified that Mr. Diamond’s suggestion was to get parking numbers based on the square footage requirement and phase it with the increase in employees. Mr. Daniels felt the study done by the applicant would also take care of the actual needs for now and the future.
Motion for Petition #410-600
Arla Funk moved that, based on the findings in the staff report, the Planning Commission approve petition 410-600 requesting additional height to the Watson Pharmaceutical Building subject to the three items outlined in the staff report with the following additional changes: that the parking requirement immediately be reduced to 399; that the petitioner be required to make an analysis of his actual parking needs by polling the employees to find out how they get to work and by counting the number of cars in the parking lot each day for a week; that the petitioner initiate a bus pass program to encourage employees to come to work on the bus and a car pooling incentive; that the petitioner extrapolate the percentages to determine what they will be with the increase in the number of employees and pursue the alternative parking recommendation through the Board of Adjustment; and that the petitioner be allowed to pull a building permit immediately to start construction.
Mr. Wilde asked for clarification that the Planning Commission would be willing accept whatever parking requirement comes from the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Funk replied that was correct.
Tim Chambless seconded the motion.
Ms. Arnold asked how this could be monitored. Ms. Funk assumed it would be monitored by the Planning Staff because they will submit a report to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Wilde offered to report back on the outcome.
Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Muir and Ms. Barrows were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact
A. Additional building height up to 75 feet is allowed as a Conditional Use in the “RP” Research Park Zoning District.
B. The proposed addition is in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City.
C. The surrounding streets are suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated traffic and will not degrade the service level on adjacent streets.
D. The internal circulation system will be adequate for the proposed development.
E. Before this proposed addition is permitted for construction, all utilities will comply with the standards and requirements of the Public Utilities Department.
F. Appropriate buffering will be provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise, and visual impacts.
G. Based on the review as completed by the Research Park Architectural Committee, it appears that architecture and building materials will be consistent with existing development and compatible with adjacent properties.
H. Landscape buffering must be installed where/if applicable subject to Section 21A.48 - Landscaping and Buffering, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping as proposed will be appropriate for the scale of this development.
I. To the City’s knowledge, there are no historically significant features on the property.
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed addition will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact.
L. The proposed development must comply with all other applicable codes and ordinances; initiation of the development review process and application for a building permit will ensure compliance with all codes.
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with all the codes and requirements as governed by the Research Park Architectural Committee and Salt Lake City Ordinance.
2. Compliance with all City departmental comments and recommendations.
3. That any new lighting being placed within the development be shielded to prevent uplighting/light pollution.
4. The parking requirement immediately be reduced to 399.
5. The petitioner be required to make an analysis of his actual parking needs by polling the employees to find out how they get to work and by counting the number of cars in the parking lot each day for a week.
6. The petitioner initiate a bus pass program to encourage employees to come to work on the bus and a car pooling incentive
7. The petitioner extrapolate the percentages to determine what they will be with the increase in the number of employees and pursue the alternative parking recommendation through the Board of Adjustment
8. The petitioner be allowed to pull a building permit immediately to start construction.
The Planning Commission took a short break, after which Mr. Wilde reported that he spoke with the people from Watson Laboratories and they informed him that the Building Permits Counter did not agree to allow them to go through the alternative parking requirement provision. Mr. Wilde was unsure why access to the process was denied, but he felt the Planning Commission should have that information. Ms. Funk suggested that Mr. Wilde pursue this information and, if there is a problem, bring it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-18, by the Union Pacific Railroad Co., requesting that Salt Lake City declare a 1.765-acre parcel of land jointly owned with Salt Lake County as part of City-County Sanitary Landfill Site as surplus property, located at approximately 5800 West 900 South in an “M-1" zoning district.
Planner Mikolash reviewed the request by Union Pacific Railroad as presented in the Staff report. He identified the location of the property on a zoning map. The parcel is currently land locked and was sold to the City in 1995 by the Knorr family to be used as a buffer from potential M-1 uses to the north. This declaration will allow for future construction of a viaduct at 5600 West and part of the railroad track realignment necessary for relocating the Freight Intermodal Hub facility east of 5600 West. Mr. Mikolash stated that the staff report contains Code criteria for disposition of this type of property. He reported that the petition came from Union Pacific Railroad and was handed directly to Property Management. Linda Cordova requested that this be processed as surplus property. The petition was reviewed by the appropriate City departments without opposition. The Planning Division requested that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Arnold asked if Union Pacific plans to put anything on this property. Mr. Mikolash replied that they have only declared plans to run a railroad line parallel to the Western Pacific Railroad line. Mr. Wheelwright noted that Romney Stewart from the landfill attended the meeting but had to leave before this item was heard, but there is a letter in the file from Mr. Stewart supporting this petition.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
There was no comment.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 400-02-18
In the matter of Petition No. 400-02-18, based on the findings of fact, Jeff Jonas moved to forward a recommendation to the Mayor for this petition to declare a l.765-acre parcel owned jointly with Salt Lake County as part of the City-County Sanitary Landfill Site as surplus property and that the City proceed with this petition in accordance with Ordinance 2.58. Arla Funk seconded the motion with a correction to page 4 of the staff report to change the petition number from 400-02-08 to 400-02-18. Mr. Jonas accepted the change. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Muir and Ms. Barrows were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has received Petition No. 410-596 from Neal Stowe of the Sinclair Oil/Grand America Hotel to modify the planned development at the Grand America Hotel (located between Main to State Streets and 500 to 600 South) to allow for a vehicle staging area, within the block corners (500 South and State Streets + 600 South and State Streets), without the required setbacks.
Planner Doug Dansie reviewed the petition to pave the corners of 600 South and State and 500 South and State Street at the Grand America Hotel as presented in the staff report. The staff report contained an outline of what was originally approved in the planned development. The building is programmed to eventually accommodate a tower on the corner of 500 South and State, but the applicant does not own all the property on that corner, so the tower will not be built in the near future. Mr. Dansie noted that the hotel ballroom has been very successful, and many of the shows have used more displays, which require more trucks than originally projected. Currently, all the trucks stack onto State Street before coming into the hotel. Due to the limited amount of stacking space on State Street, the Grand America would like to pave the land they own on the corner of 500 South and State Street with concrete, landscape the perimeter, and place fencing around it to be used as a staging area for trucks. Mr. Dansie noted that the Grand America Hotel and the landscaping are not finished. A wrought iron and granite fence will go up around the hotel as part of the original approval. The site on 600 South where the exhibit hall is planned was hastily paved over during the Olympics, and the hotel has been told to remove the current paving and re-pave it properly. Of the two staging areas, the one on 600 South is the most temporary because there is a need to expand the exhibit space.
Mr. Chambless asked about the difference between a parking lot and a staging area. Mr. Dansie replied that neither of the staging areas will be striped for parking stalls, and neither is intended for employee or guest parking.
Neal Stowe, architect and planner representing the petitioner, provided background on the hotel and explained the need for the vehicle staging area.
Ms. Funk noted that the staff report indicates that both staging areas would be temporary interim uses until the exhibit hall can be built. She asked if that was still the case or whether the hotel’s needs have changed. Mr. Stowe replied that at one point a presentation was made with the consideration that, if they owned the 500 South corner, they would build an additional 12-story tower. However, they did not acquire that property. In the six years since the original approval, nearly 5,000 new hotel rooms have been built in the Salt Lake Valley, which dramatically changed the occupancy rate. The Grand America does not anticipate building more hotel rooms now or in the future. Exhibit space became an economic decision because enough activity is needed to support it. The hotel is currently in the process of evaluating that decision. If they decide to build the exhibit space, it will take 24 to 36 months to complete. In the interim, the concern is how to use the space to support ongoing operations. Mr. Daniels clarified with Mr. Stowe that the staging area will be interim and may or may not turn into an exhibit hall.
Ms. McDonough inquired about plans for the staging area if the exhibit hall is built. Mr. Stowe replied that the corner is 20,000 square feet, and they would maximize everything to have a sufficient amount of space. The City ordinance requires that all staging areas be screened from public view, which would have to be part of the design concept subject to Planning Commission approval. Ms. McDonough asked if it would be possible to accommodate both needs in that amount of space. Mr Stowe replied that it would be possible, but they would probably desire a larger exhibit space. Ms. McDonough acknowledged that the likelihood of pursuing the exhibit hall would be market driven based on the potential of doing business in that area and asked if allowing the staging areas as proposed would delay the exhibit hall decision. Mr. Stowe felt it would be more of a design solution issue than a delay.
Mr. Chambless asked if Little America could function as a possible solution to the exhibit hall problems. Mr. Stowe explained why that was not a viable solution.
Chair Daniels opened the public hearing.
Doug Dansie read a written comment from Margaret Pahl who came to speak in opposition but had to leave before this petition was heard. Ms. Pahl indicated that she had read the staff report and noted that in the prior planned development approval, the Grand America claimed it could handle all service trucks, etc., in the underground staging area. She believed the building turned a back door to State Street as Rawlings Young predicted with no interesting view along the entire block. Adding a staging area on the very visible corner of 600 South and State would be an insult to the 50,000 people who pass that corner daily, most of whom will never stay in this hotel. The 500 South area is screened and thus not as offensive. Ms. Pahl believed a four-foot hedge would do little or nothing to screen 18-wheelers on the corner of 600 South. She requested that the Planning Commission require landscaping.
Chair Daniels closed the public hearing.
Motion for Petition No. 410-596
In the matter of Petition 410-596, based upon the findings of fact and the representation of the applicants with respect to landscaping, Jeff Jonas recommended that the Planning Commission amend the previously approved planned development to allow vehicle staging areas at 500 South and State Street and 600 South and State Street adjacent to the Grand America Hotel with the condition that the Planning Director approve the final landscaping. Arla Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson, and Ms Noda voted “Aye.” Mr. Muir and Ms. Barrows were not present. Robert “Bip” Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried.
Findings of Fact
A. The design modification is authorized by the zoning ordinance.
B. The proposed uses are an improvement over existing conditions and will serve as a viable interim use.
C. The means of access to the property are adequate. The staging areas will improve general traffic circulation by removing delivery trucks and buses from queuing on major streets.
D. Internal circulation is adequate at both the 500 South and 600 South sites.
E. Storm water may be managed by tying into the City storm water system. The two proposed staging areas will be drained into adjacent street system drains and will not be required to retain storm water on site.
F. Buffering is not required between the hotel and the one adjacent land use; however, a 5-foot landscaped buffer is being provided. Buffering is adequate.
G. The proposed fencing is compatible with the hotel architecture. No fencing is being provided at the 600 South corner. Any signage will require a separate permit.
H. The landscaping will be consistent with the hotel site.
I. Operating hours are compatible with the adjacent business and the Central Business District in general.
J. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the surrounding uses in the Central Business District because the uses are intended to be interim until economics warrant the construction of buildings on the site. The staff believes the uses are an appropriate interim development for the two sites and will not have a net cumulative adverse impact on the City.
K. The staging areas will meet all other city codes prior to receiving a building permit.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Commissioners discussed possible ways to shorten the length of their meetings and be more efficient. Chair Daniels did not feel the Staff was allowing a realistic amount of time for discussion and action on each issue. He believed the bare minimum for each case should be 30 minutes, and in some cases more. He felt they should be more accurate with the timing out of respect for people who come to listen or speak on a particular item. Mr. Wilde offered to stretch out the time for a few meetings to see what happens but noted that it is difficult to predict how long a matter will take. Ms. Arnold suggested planning a range of time for each item rather than trying to be exact. Mr. Diamond suggested reducing the number of applicants at each meeting, stated that he gets burned out when the meetings run long and late. Mr. Wheelwright noted that they currently have twice as many items as they have slots on agendas Mr. Chambless agreed that the Planning Commission gets burned out, and when they are tired, it is difficult to make good decisions.
Mr. Goldsmith proposed holding a half-day retreat in the next 4 to 6 weeks to address Planning Commission and Staff observations. Ms. Noda favored a retreat because she felt they needed to discuss how to streamline the process and become more efficient. The Commissioners concurred. Mr. Goldsmith offered to E-Mail the Commissioners with several meeting options and choose the one that is best for the majority. Mr. Nelson felt the Planning Commission needed training on how to concentrate on development issues, because they get distracted on things that do not pertain to the petition.
Mr. Goldsmith commented on the direction at the last meeting to have Staff include an alternative motion in the Staff report. He stated that is not appropriate and suggested that the Staff help the Commissioners construct an alternative motion when it comes to that situation. The Commissioners were comfortable with that alternative.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.